Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series

[Artkin]

The T-62s had some seriously abysmal performance in the CMCW tournament Slysniper is hosting. My opponent had unbuttoned tanks totally oblivious to huge m60's for like half a turn within 300m. So I also think something isnt right there.

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Artkin

[IICptMillerII]

19 minutes ago, Artkin said:

The T-62s had some seriously abysmal performance in the CMCW tournament Slysniper is hosting. My opponent had unbuttoned tanks totally oblivious to huge m60's for like half a turn within 300m. So I also think something isnt right there.

 

Huh. Pretty much all of my experience playing the Soviets is that I have T-62s both outspotting and outshooting M60s, and the M60s are unbuttoned while the T-62s are buttoned up. Crazy how different these anecdotes are. 

[danfrodo]

CaptMiller, your superior spotting is clearly due to your pre-battle speeches extolling the superior eyesight of the clear-seeing communist party and the well indoctrinated proletariat of soviet soldiery

[Simcoe]

53 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Huh. Pretty much all of my experience playing the Soviets is that I have T-62s both outspotting and outshooting M60s, and the M60s are unbuttoned while the T-62s are buttoned up. Crazy how different these anecdotes are. 

Your tankers have been eating their carrots!

[holoween]

57 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Huh. Pretty much all of my experience playing the Soviets is that I have T-62s both outspotting and outshooting M60s, and the M60s are unbuttoned while the T-62s are buttoned up. Crazy how different these anecdotes are. 

I havent noticed Soviet tanks to be particularly blind though somewhat less attentive. However the randomness of CM spotting is far more noticable so id say most issues being brought up is people expecting far more than reasonable.

[The_Capt]

You know after all this fuss and bother, I did some tests and if anyone does not like the match up between T62s and M60A1s the fix is easy: change the crew quality levels. 

I ran some tests of two Coys (17 tanks each) at 1000m and these are not extensive but here is what I saw in a very small sampling:

Reg v Reg - roughly 2-1 for the M60

Crack T62 v Reg M60 - 1 to 1, and even a slight edge to the T62 on a couple tries.

Elite T62 v Green M60 - 1 to 3 for the T62

So basically by adjusting crew quality a plyer can adjust the match up however he or she wants.  You want Soviet supermen make em Elite/Crack vs Green or Conscript US, you can live out whatever your version of reality is (or is not).  Hell, I matched up the M60A3 TTS with Conscript crews vs T62 Crack and got a 1-to-1 result and these tanks are not even the same species.

This is the real strength of this game - sandbox.

 

[Grey_Fox]

15 hours ago, dbsapp said:

The thing that M60s sometimes don't see something doesn't change the fact that on average all Soviet tanks are much, much worse in spotting than their American opponents, and it makes them really uncompetitive. 

The only thing the video shows tbh is that if you try to use the Soviets like you use the US forces, you're going to suffer.

The thing that keeps need to be repeated again and again (including in the discussion.video in the OP is that if you are trying to fight 1:1 as the Soviets against the US, you're doing it wrong. You need to have local numerical superiority.

Who cares if your guys only have individually a 40% chance of getting the first spot in an individual matchup if you are using the formation as it was I tended to be used, where your 10 T62s engage 3 or 4 US tanks at a time?

Edited February 8, 2022 by Grey_Fox

[Simcoe]

30 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

You know after all this fuss and bother, I did some tests and if anyone does not like the match up between T62s and M60A1s the fix is easy: change the crew quality levels. 

I ran some tests of two Coys (17 tanks each) at 1000m and these are not extensive but here is what I saw in a very small sampling:

Reg v Reg - roughly 2-1 for the M60

Crack T62 v Reg M60 - 1 to 1, and even a slight edge to the T62 on a couple tries.

Elite T62 v Green M60 - 1 to 3 for the T62

So basically by adjusting crew quality a plyer can adjust the match up however he or she wants.  You want Soviet supermen make em Elite/Crack vs Green or Conscript US, you can live out whatever your version of reality is (or is not).  Hell, I matched up the M60A3 TTS with Conscript crews vs T62 Crack and got a 1-to-1 result and these tanks are not even the same species.

This is the real strength of this game - sandbox.

 

I don’t think mid range is the issue (for me at least) it’s the variability of unbottoned spotting at close range. 

I think a sticky thread should be created to discuss spotting in general. Seems like a lot of threads get derailed by this discussion.

[IICptMillerII]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

CaptMiller, your superior spotting is clearly due to your pre-battle speeches extolling the superior eyesight of the clear-seeing communist party and the well indoctrinated proletariat of soviet soldiery

Da, comrade! Check out this vid of me giving one such address to my men before a battle: 

 

1 hour ago, Simcoe said:

Your tankers have been eating their carrots!

Extra rations of carrots every day!

1 hour ago, holoween said:

most issues being brought up is people expecting far more than reasonable.

How do you say, "hit the nail on the head" in German?

Edited February 8, 2022 by IICptMillerII

[The_Capt]

9 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

I don’t think mid range is the issue (for me at least) it’s the variability of unbottoned spotting at close range. 

I think a sticky thread should be created to discuss spotting in general. Seems like a lot of threads get derailed by this discussion.

Ya, not a terrible idea.  Problem with spotting is that it is so complex.  I mean armor penetration is easy by comparison.  Spotting is a combination of soft and hard factors that are dynamic based position, movement and in scenario environmental stuff. 

The worst part is that there are not a lot of "Big War Books of Spotting" out there for any conflict really.  One may get lucky and get a few reports and some historical anecdotes but RL data is hard to come by.  For example from that report dbsapp posted:

Shows that US Fire Control was judged as better in the same report that says US tanks all suck.  Unless you were on the OR team that did the study this is hard to make a call on.  

And then everyone has eyes, so everyone is an expert on spotting.  Gunnery, very few people experience, but everyone has been in a position where they needed to spot something at varying distances. So we wind up with contradictory and often loud opinions and not that much actual data.  I have been in the field on dismounted and mounted attacks and can tell you that spotting is really difficult.  Not the eyeballs, the communication of targets.  Someone will see something and then trying to get everyone else to see it is really tough.  We invented a whole bunch of ways to do it (indicators, tracers, smoke, IR lasers at night) and still it is hard to get everyone to see something "right there".   

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

26 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

Seems like a lot of threads get derailed by this discussion.

Yes, but it's one guy doing most of the derailing.

[Simcoe]

5 hours ago, Grey_Fox said:

The only thing the video shows tbh is that if you try to use the Soviets like you use the US forces, you're going to suffer.

The thing that keeps need to be repeated again and again (including in the discussion.video in the OP is that if you are trying to fight 1:1 as the Soviets against the US, you're doing it wrong. You need to have local numerical superiority.

Who cares if your guys only have individually a 40% chance of getting the first spot in an individual matchup if you are using the formation as it was I tended to be used, where your 10 T62s engage 3 or 4 US tanks at a time?

I thought about this post while playing the 2nd mission of the Russian campaign. The BMP’s really help with this because they can’t go toe to toe with an M60 (even worse than T-62’s!) but if the M60 shoots the T62 then the BMP takes out the M60 and vice versa. 
 

Really plays into the never go 1:1 as the Russians.

[THH149]

5 hours ago, Grey_Fox said:

if you are trying to fight 1:1 as the Soviets against the US, you're doing it wrong.

In the development of the Active Defense doctrine, the US expected to fight outnumbered 3:1 and even 6:1 and planned to win the first battle at those force ratios. If the Soviets get lured into fighting 1:1 they are giving up one of their greatest advantages. Soviets must fight en masse to win, just like the US must fight en masse to win if they were the attacker.

The reasons why the US can win at 3:1 or worse is because of the defenders advantages:  

The lessons of lethality and terrain
permeated these missions. TRADOC's
doctrinal writers laid stress on the
advantages of the defender-full use of
cover and concealment, selection of the
ground on which to fight, weapons sited

for maximum effectiveness, reinforce-
ment of terrain with mines and obsta-
cles, and the choice of firing first. The

defender could expect to defeat an
attacker three times as strong. The
attacker's forces were the more
vulnerable, and his weapons were not
as effective as the weapons of the
defender. In the attack, a ratio of 6:1
was required.25

From: Active Defense to Air Land Battle: Development of Army Doctrine 1973-1982

In the UH game, he had the option of taking the first objective then setting up a defensive perimeter with tanks and the BMP ATGM launchers, forcing the US to come to a fight if he wanted to win that ME. There was no game driver for the Soviets to continue the attack so why not maneuver for position and sly sniper the US to death.

Edited February 8, 2022 by THH149

[THH149]

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

So basically by adjusting crew quality a plyer can adjust the match up however he or she wants.

The Capt's perspective might be right (IDK) but it makes me a little nervous when I read the descriptions of Soviet training as focussing on realism and use of live fire to help that experience. Even conscripts put down their Phantom comics and pay attention when a training sessions involves a life and death situation.

Like I can't imagine that conscripted Soviets are as poorly trained as Russians of WW1 or Stalingrad tank drivers of WW2 or British infantry of 1915 and 1916...

[THH149]

Who does this apply to ....

The attack had to be
planned around several basic concepts.
The best intelligence was required in

order to "see" the battlefield. Over-
whelming combat power had to be con-
centrated on a narrow front. The

enemy's defenses had first to be sup-
pressed by every means at hand-
antitank guided missiles, tanks, direct

fires, artillery and mortars, smoke, and

air attack. The attack had to be shock
attack-narrow, deep, fast, and without

let-up to the enemy rear-with over-
whelming force...

It actually describes how the US is meant to attack.

[Lethaface]

13 hours ago, Artkin said:

The T-62s had some seriously abysmal performance in the CMCW tournament Slysniper is hosting. My opponent had unbuttoned tanks totally oblivious to huge m60's for like half a turn within 300m. So I also think something isnt right there.

 

As someone who played with the T-62s in that tournament I had a slightly different experience. I think the performance of M60 vs T-62 was for a large part decided by how the players utilize the assets. In my game my opponents m60 didn't do that much against my T-62s, although the TOW vehicles (and Dragons fired through smoke) did take a heavy toll on my tank force.

One thing I did notice is that the T-62s seemed to be more affected, with regards to their spotting, by dust and smoke compared to the M60A1. 
Another thing some people might forget at times, is the value of c2. For example in that match I had my FO in a good observation post. He relayed this information to the infantry Bn HQ. I had the infantry Bn HQ meet up with both Tank Bn HQs so they could exchange c2 info. That worked and before my tanks were taking up positions, they all had tentative contacts for the enemy tanks and had no issue spotting them (having tentative contacts makes a big difference). I'm not 100% sure about the US OOB in that match but the tanks and mech infantry might all be part of the same structure and thus c2 information is shared between the whole force automatically. In general US forces have better c2 infrastructure to help sharing spotting info and that might explain quite a significant part of people finding their RED tanks blind compared to BLUE tanks.
In CMx2 it is always prudent to check the c2 structure and if you command various formations make sure the HQs of those formations are in range to exchange spotting info as fast as possible.

Anyway in my anecdotal experience the m60 does have better spotting than a T-62 in CMCW. Whether the real world spotting capabilities (optics etc) are correctly translated in game is another question. But not all tanks have equal spotting capabilities and AFAIK CMx2 tries to model each individual vehicles capabilities. So the m60 being better than a T-62 with regards to spotting isn't necessarily a problem; it might not only be working as designed but also true to real life capabilities. I'm not a real expert in that field but going from Wikipedia, other posts/info, my own observation and critical thinking there seems to be various indications that the spotting/optics/target acquisition of the T-62 is worse
than that of m60A1. For example the T-62 gunners sight is said to be far from ideal.

On another note;

The thing which did struck me as an issue (not sure if it's a bug or working as intended) was the T-62s tendency to use it's HEAT round at distances around ~1KM+, instead of it's APFSDS round. The HEAT round is just not accurate at that range while the APFSDS round is (and capable enough to damage the M60 at that range, or take it out).

[Bufo]

19 hours ago, The_Capt said:

It was the noted "lack of high powered optics, thermal sights and fire control computers" that I was highlighting.  Hell the 1972 version didn't even have a laser range finder.

None of the USA MBTs had laser rangefinders in 1972 (only the M60A2 from 1973).

The T-62 got it from 1975 and the "real" M60 series from 1978 with the A3 model.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Bufo

[Bufo]

Double

Edited February 8, 2022 by Bufo

[The_Capt]

11 hours ago, Bufo said:

None of the USA MBTs had laser rangefinders in 1972 (only the M60A2 from 1973).

The T-62 got it from 1975 and the "real" M60 series from 1978 with the A3 model.

Fair point and accurate for the M60A1 series but if you check that pictogram I posted above (from dbsapps document) you can see that the overall assessment of optics and targeting gave the advantage to the M60A1.  This matches the accuracy of the range finding sights:

Now unless I am totally off, the T62 had stereoscopic sights for the commander

https://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/945-tankograd-t-62-khruschevs-bastard/ [Tank Nerd Site]

"As befitting his tactical role, the commander's general visibility is facilitated by two TNPO-170 periscopes on either side of the primary surveillance periscope in the fixed forward half of the cupola, and further augmented by two more 54-36-318-R periscopes embedded in the hatch, aimed to either side for additional situational awareness. Overall, this scheme was sufficient for most purposes, but was deficient if compared to the much more generous allowance of periscopes and vision ports found on NATO tanks."

Which matches this:

"Despite its range, the new gun was not a success mostly due to crude gun control, and firing on the move or on a moving target accuratey was tricky even at short range. Second-hit capabilities were limited. It was aggravated by a low rate of fire, very slow traverse for the turret, and limited depression/elevation (tradeoffs of the low-profile design) (a liability on a sloped terrain, as shown in numerous engagements of the cold war)."

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/ussr/soviet_t-62.php

While the gunner had:

"The TSh2B-41 is a monocular telescopic sight, functioning as the gunner's primary sight for direct fire purposes. It has two magnification settings, x3.5 or x7, and an angular field of view of 18° in the former setting and 9° in the latter setting. As was and still is common for all tank sights, it has an anti-glare coating for easier aiming when facing the sun. It comes with a small wiper to clean it from moisture, and it comes with an integrated heater for defrosting.
 
  "Like most other tanks of its time, the T-62 lacked a ballistic computer, but it was also unusually deficient in the rangefinding department. For rangefinding, the gunner had to make use of a stadiametric ranging scale embossed on the sight aperture. Compared to optical coincidence rangefinders, stadia rangefinding was terribly imprecise, but also much simpler in both production and employment, and much more economical than, say, optical coincidence rangefinding. In fact, stadia rangefinding is essentially free, since all that is needed are some etchings into the sight lens. The savings made from the exclusion of an optical coincidence rangefinder were enormous, amounting to many thousands of rubles. Ranging errors of up to several hundred meters is often the norm, especially if some of the lower part of the target vehicle is obscured behind vegetation or other terrain features. It isn't uncommon for the first shot on faraway tank-sized targets to fall woefully short or fly clear over."

Emphasis added because that is how militarily procurement really works - cheap as possible - lowest bidder.

While the M60A12 had the M17A1 rangefinder, which is a coincidence range finder:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=Z4OcF_VeEokC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=M17A1+coincidence+rangefinder&source=bl&ots=fMPNLuzFki&sig=ACfU3U1CEbUUFvBmnaCMRCL4ud-avEZxPg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0iOCPnPD1AhWVjIkEHXiaBxoQ6AF6BAg9EAM#v=onepage&q=M17A1 coincidence rangefinder&f=false

Backed up with a mechanical fire control computer (M19E1).

This is probably why in the Nordeen and Isby book they assess accuracy of the M60A1 as nearly twice that of the T62 at 2000m (pg 85 and 91) 44% for the US APDS round vs 27% for the Soviet BR-5 APFSDS.  In fact based on these charts, parity for gun accuracy (let alone all the other factors) does not start to occur until under 1000m.

Gotta say that no matter how one stacks it up, there does not seem to be a realistic 1:1 clash outcome between the M60A1 and T62 based on targeting alone, let alone all the factors of ergonomics and C2.  This is the part where the "Soviets are not well represented" club comes back with some counter-facts that may offset this, because I for one am a fan of the old T62 and in the right hands she can deliver.    

 

 

Edited February 9, 2022 by The_Capt

[dbsapp]

18 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Can you point me at the thread where you cited this? 

I cited it here:

https://community.battlefront.com/topic/140252-steel-beasts-vs-combat-mission-t-72-visibility-test/?do=findComment&comment=1888680

I've found interesting discussion that resembles ours between Zaloga and two other researchers in "International Security" magazine:

 

[dbsapp]

16 hours ago, Artkin said:

The T-62s had some seriously abysmal performance in the CMCW tournament Slysniper is hosting.

 

3 hours ago, Lethaface said:

As someone who played with the T-62s in that tournament I had a slightly different experience.

Do you have stats on Red vs Blue results in the tournament?

[Lethaface]

2 hours ago, dbsapp said:

 

Do you have stats on Red vs Blue results in the tournament?

There are some stats but they have limited/zero value for determining anything other than the players relative performance. As I understood the battle was designed to favor BLUE. Among other things BLUE forces were crack with TOWs and dragons, while RED forces had more tanks.

[Lethaface]

3 hours ago, dbsapp said:

I cited it here:

https://community.battlefront.com/topic/140252-steel-beasts-vs-combat-mission-t-72-visibility-test/?do=findComment&comment=1888680

I've found interesting discussion that resembles ours between Zaloga and two other researchers in "International Security" magazine:

 

There is nothing on optics in your citation. 

Do you assert that the T-62 had equal optics to the M60A1, or a ballistic computer? If so, on what basis?

[MikeyD]

In the 1973 war Israel started with roughly 1,700 tanks and lost 1,000. The opposing armies had roughly twice that number and lost roughly twice that number. Full-up war in our timeframe was a bloody affair without much finesse. Carnage on the battlefield should be no surprise. CM posters often speak of tank match-ups as though they were tournament jousts between individual knights. A closer analogy might be a gang brawl. What's more dangerous, three guys with fencing foils or six guys with cudgels? 

[Simcoe]

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

In the 1973 war Israel started with roughly 1,700 tanks and lost 1,000. The opposing armies had roughly twice that number and lost roughly twice that number. Full-up war in our timeframe was a bloody affair without much finesse. Carnage on the battlefield should be no surprise. CM posters often speak of tank match-ups as though they were tournament jousts between individual knights. A closer analogy might be a gang brawl. What's more dangerous, three guys with fencing foils or six guys with cudgels? 

Is it possible to find out how actual NTC battles turned out? Like AAR’s? Seems like there would be a lot of lessons learned there as well.